Thursday, January 08, 2009

A Lowly Municipal Clerk Has More Life-and-death Power Over You Than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, with about $60 billion in assets each, are America's richest men. With all that money, what can they force us to do? Can they take our house to make room so that another person can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run retirement Ponzi scheme called Social Security? Can Buffett and Gates force us to bus our children to schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Unless they are granted power by politicians, rich people have little power to force us to do anything. A GS-9, or a lowly municipal clerk, has far more life-and-death power over us. It's they to whom we must turn to for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a restaurant and a myriad of other activities. It's government people, not rich people, who have the power to coerce and make our lives miserable. Coercive power goes a long way toward explaining political corruption.~Walter Williams column "Rich People vs. Politicians"

4 Comments:

From an interview w/Economist Hernando de Soto in 2003:With the help of five university students who spent several hours a day grappling with Peruvian bureaucracy, he discovered that to obtain a license to operate a small business took 289 days and cost 31 times the average monthly minimum wage. It was not surprising that most people bypassed the process, operating without a license.

Unless they are granted power by politicians, rich people have little power to force us to do anything.

This is the UNDERSTATEMENT of the century. OF COURSE RICH PEOPLE GET GOVERNMENTS TO DO THEIR BIDDING! Have you ever heard of corporate welfare?? The "welfare state" is but a fraction of the cost of the "corporate welfare state".

Also, yes a burdensome bureaucracy can hamper the economy. But it doesn't have to be. It is possible to have an effective bureaucracy that get its job done.

I have mentioned this before, but why are the arguments against a bureaucracy not put forth against police departments. Police departments have much more power than some municipal welfare clerk. They seriously can kill economies or severely perverse them. The history of corrupt police departments is long. And yet, we still have police departments and for the most part they are very effective and serve their purpose.

Just like, we shouldn't get rid of police departments because of isolated anecdotes of police brutality, isolated anecdotes of bureaucratic power abuse does not mean we should get rid of the bureaucracy.

Reform of certain institutions might be needed from time to time, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

> Just like, we shouldn't get rid of police departments because of isolated anecdotes of police brutality, isolated anecdotes of bureaucratic power abuse does not mean we should get rid of the bureaucracy.

That has got to be the LAMEST, most HALF ASSED argument for governmental overreaching I've heard in a long time.

"Police Departments" are, in once sense or another, an essential need.

Where's the "essential need" for my local Florida city government to subsidize an ice skating rink to be brought into town during the month of December, for a cost of around 100k per year?

They aren't doing it THIS year. Mainly because someone with a brain commented loudly enough on it LAST year.

> This is the UNDERSTATEMENT of the century. OF COURSE RICH PEOPLE GET GOVERNMENTS TO DO THEIR BIDDING!

LOL, it's a "misstatement" by your argument you half-witted retard.

For it to be an "understatement" it would have to be TRUE, which is directly contrary to your claim.

In fact, I concur with that claim itself, however -- rich people DO have power in that manner you suggest.

So how, exactly, do you figure granting them MORE POWERS is EVER going to NOT get manipulated by the so-called "Rich Bastards"?

The only ACTUAL answer is to strongly limit governmental powers.

"It sounds to me as if you're trying to get rid of government altogether... it sounds like anarchy.""Not at all. It has plenty to do in its proper sphere: defense, law enforcement, running the court system, and the minimum of legislation beyond which protects everyone's rights. It's essentially a passive function.""The little guy would get CRUSHED!""He would NOT. It's the little guy who'd benefit. Almost all unnecessary law exists to keep him in his place. Government doesn't create a dollar of wealth. It can only hand out what it takes, and ultimately, it's the little guy it gets taken from, every time." - James P. Hogan, 'Mirror Maze' -

"Social Security" is there to "help the little guy", right?

Bull f'ing sh**.

It takes money from poor black males and gives it to well-off white women.

A privatized pension system (akin to 401k's) with the exact same required pay-ins would be far, far more equitable, would pay out far, far better, and would allow a black man to have a legacy to leave behind for someone -- his wife, his kids, etc., or to leave to a suitable charity if he chose.

The current system rewards the people who live the longest -- upper and middle class white women. And allows NO ONE to have anything to leave to their heirs, since it's all "funny money", being a giant Ponzi Scheme of musical deposits.

The whole thing is utterly despiccable.

And the fact that it's been a looming problem -- acknowledged as a serious issue starting sometime around 2017, is nothing less than reprehensible.

For constantly obstructing any and all efforts to actually FIX this looming disaster, the leaders of the Democratic Party should be rounded up and shot for TREASON.

THAT is about the only way anyone is going to get any "reform" out of this broken piece of SHIT.